Not sure where to post this info for Camaro - Z/28 people, so I put it here.

ZLP955

Mar 11th, 13, 02:00 PM

Here's the pad stamp picture from the above link:
Anyone else see a problem with 19L55xxxx??
http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss41/Williams_Family/IMG959093_zps317d900e.jpg

click

Mar 11th, 13, 02:07 PM

*** deleted wrong info. ***
oops I forgot to double check my post before hitting 'save'... I was in error. Thanks Tim for the heads up.

alanrw

Mar 11th, 13, 02:46 PM

Any possibility it is a good factory stamp that was just mis-stamped in the factory? Did they even put the VIN on the engine pad?

ZLP955

Mar 11th, 13, 02:52 PM

*** removed wrong info. from Mod's post ***

19L is correct for Camaro partial, but the second digit of the VIN sequence (55) is what I was referring to.
And I should have added that regardless of the stamp, I think it's great that the Corvette guys are trying to help reunite car and engine block :thumbsup:

Nikke

Mar 11th, 13, 02:56 PM

http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml

KevinW

Mar 11th, 13, 03:01 PM

Yes, that is strange. The last VIN from the LA plant is 9L531163 http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany

And yes, VN stamped the VIN on the engine pad until they shutdown around July of 69.

click

Mar 11th, 13, 03:11 PM

Just to blend in with Kevin...some LA partial VINs were on the rough boss by the oil filter too. Mine was :)

ChevyThunder

Mar 11th, 13, 04:26 PM

I think by April Van Nuys was also putting the VIN on the rough casting. My 03D Van Nuys Z has it on the deck .

KevinW

Mar 11th, 13, 04:45 PM

Interesting. I though I had save a pic of a later one. I have to look for that now :)

William

Mar 11th, 13, 05:14 PM

The VIN is a restamp.

L554125 never existed; N554125 was final-assembled on or about Dec 4, 1968 and would not have had an engine dated Feb 7, 1969.

ZLP955

Mar 11th, 13, 05:42 PM

Interesting. I though I had save a pic of a later one. I have to look for that now :)
This is one of the recent VN pad stamps that I've come across, although the photo doesn't show the whole partial, it is 19L53xxxx so would be late April (or later) car.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a26/JimRohn/bc/bcdzpad.jpg

emccomas

Mar 11th, 13, 07:24 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight, but we (the Corvette people) have documented MANY examples of mistakes in engine, transmission, frame stampings over the years.

I would not automatically jump to the conclusion that this is a restamp. It may be a factory mistake. What if 19L554125 was supposed to be 19L524125.

Honestly, I don't know what the real story is here, but I do know that making assumptions isn't the way to find out.

In any event, I hope this "find" is of some interest to some you you.

63VetteConv

Mar 11th, 13, 08:44 PM

This is my engine; I am the OP on the Corvette Forum. Thanks to emccomas for posting the info and your interesting feedback.

This engine has been in my dad's garage unmolested for at least 25 years, probably longer. It was in his '63 Vette but it blew a piston and he replaced it with the '73 350 crate engine that is currently in the car. How long have people been re-stamping engines and why would somebody re-stamp a VIN that never existed? The engine still has the pistons but not the heads. Anything else I could use to identify the engine?

Thanks for the help!

68camaroz28

Mar 11th, 13, 09:28 PM

This is my engine; I am the OP on the Corvette Forum. Thanks to emccomas for posting the info and your interesting feedback.

This engine has been in my dad's garage unmolested for at least 25 years, probably longer. It was in his '63 Vette but it blew a piston and he replaced it with the '73 350 crate engine that is currently in the car. How long have people been re-stamping engines and why would somebody re-stamp a VIN that never existed? The engine still has the pistons but not the heads. Anything else I could use to identify the engine?

Thanks for the help!

Welcome to team camaro Tom! Clean the pad off with some lacquer thinner and post another close up picture of the unpainted pad.
Back in 2008 I found the 69Z owner of the DZ short-block that had been in our 67 Corvette since 1979.

frankk

Mar 11th, 13, 09:34 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight, but we (the Corvette people) have documented MANY examples of mistakes in engine, transmission, frame stampings over the years.

I would not automatically jump to the conclusion that this is a restamp. It may be a factory mistake. What if 19L554125 was supposed to be 19L524125.

Honestly, I don't know what the real story is here, but I do know that making assumptions isn't the way to find out.

In any event, I hope this "find" is of some interest to some you you.

William would NOT make a mistake on this, regargless of how you would like to rationalize it.

rszmjt

Mar 11th, 13, 11:36 PM

The VIN is a restamp.

L554125 never existed; N554125 was final-assembled on or about Dec 4, 1968 and would not have had an engine dated Feb 7, 1969.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but we (the Corvette people) have documented MANY examples of mistakes in engine, transmission, frame stampings over the years.

I would not automatically jump to the conclusion that this is a restamp. It may be a factory mistake. What if 19L554125 was supposed to be 19L524125.

Honestly, I don't know what the real story is here, but I do know that making assumptions isn't the way to find out.

In any event, I hope this "find" is of some interest to some you you.

Welcome to team camaro Tom! Clean the pad off with some lacquer thinner and post another close up picture of the unpainted pad.
Back in 2008 I found the 69Z owner of the DZ short-block that had been in our 67 Corvette since 1979.

First off WHAT is the Casting Date of this block?
Im with Chick on this, I too would like to see the pad cleaned off of paint with Lacquer thinner or acetone before making a decision if its real.

If indeed the vin on this block should have been 19L524125 certain pecularities would be the same as pictures I have of real pads.

If indeed the vin on this block should have been 19L524125 certain pecularities would be the same as known documented real pad examples. All the above have the vins on the pad BTW.

emccomas

Mar 12th, 13, 04:53 AM

I would emphasize that cleaning the pad with lacquer thinner, or some other non-distructive method is the way to go about it. Do not use a steel wire wheel in a drill, or a steel bursh, etc.

To most of us that seems obvious, but the idea is to NOT disturb the surface of the engine pad itself.

Whatever comes out of this still seems like an interesting research project.

RPOZ11

Mar 12th, 13, 10:56 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight, but we (the Corvette people) have documented MANY examples of mistakes in engine, transmission, frame stampings over the years.

I would not automatically jump to the conclusion that this is a restamp. It may be a factory mistake. What if 19L554125 was supposed to be 19L524125.

Honestly, I don't know what the real story is here, but I do know that making assumptions isn't the way to find out.

In any event, I hope this "find" is of some interest to some you you.

Agreed.

Why is it often that when one car, or more, does not fit the criteria currently gathered, that that car in question becomes exiled ?

Discrepancies exist.

Not everyone here seems to agree to accept variations, where as the Corvette guy here can back it up.

The Camaro hobby I suggest should add an additional file to cars questionable, information not conforming to existing data in hand, and allow that pool of information to be digested.

Don't wish to see it as a private in the know collection of "well we'll think about it and get back to you" approach.

There just seems to be enough variations to support some sort of findings with what can be gathered.

RPOZ11

Mar 12th, 13, 11:05 PM

some LA partial VINs were on the rough boss by the oil filter too. Mine was :)

My PaceCar VIN is on the boss.

69Z28

Mar 13th, 13, 12:16 AM

I have to agree too. I've been visiting this site for 13 years now and it does seem that things get snubbed here and for the most part don't even get a second responce, but when something doesn't look legit some are all over it like a dog in heat. Sorry guys, no malice intended here, but it does get a little aggravating to see others get stepped on so to speak when things aren't to THEIR liking, especially with cars like ours that are not ever, ever going to be factory perfect again. Between this site and CRG I have found that anything could have happened at the factory. Case in point, I currently own this block http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=216794
and it has been verified as a good stamp, and little is known about why this casting number was used, but I have gotten some pretty strange email from people that think it is a restamp or as one said, "hey that's a 305 block man", even when I point to links to the contrary. It is hard to convince people even if the info is in front of them.

I say lets figure this out. Maybe the stamper thought he/she picked up a 2 and it was a 5, who really knows.

Agreed.

Why is it often that when one car, or more, does not fit the criteria currently gathered, that that car in question becomes exiled ?

Discrepancies exist.

Not everyone here seems to agree to accept variations, where as the Corvette guy here can back it up.

The Camaro hobby I suggest should add an additional file to cars questionable, information not conforming to existing data in hand, and allow that pool of information to be digested.

Don't wish to see it as a private in the know collection of "well we'll think about it and get back to you" approach.

There just seems to be enough variations to support some sort of findings with what can be gathered.

RPOZ11

Mar 13th, 13, 11:13 AM

"I say lets figure this out. Maybe the stamper thought he/she picked up a 2 and it was a 5, who really knows."

Broken stamp?

William

Mar 13th, 13, 11:59 AM

So what you want for the hobby is the mind set that "anything could have happened at the factory?" You will just cheerfully ignore over 20 years of CRG data gathering and analysis that clearly shows that not to be true, paving the way for the re-stampers and re-bodiers to do what they do using that logic. All those COPO clones can now be sold as "possibly real."

The problem with putting detailed information out there be it in books or web sites is that it becomes an instruction manual for building fakes. For that reason the CRG has chosen not to reveal some of what has been learned over the years. When statements are made they may be based in part on information that is not public knowledge.

No one said this DZ block wasn't real-just the VIN stamp. How do you plan to prove otherwise?

Kurt S

Mar 13th, 13, 03:54 PM

Tom,
Not enough solid info to comment on the pad at this point - I have some thoughts but....
I'd like to see a better pad pic.
What's the casting date & casting #?

Thanks!
And welcome!

rszmjt

Mar 13th, 13, 04:26 PM

Tom,
Not enough solid info to comment on the pad at this point - I have some thoughts but....
I'd like to see a better pad pic.
What's the casting date & casting #?

Thanks!
And welcome!

X2 Kurt.

68camaroz28

Mar 13th, 13, 04:48 PM

X2 Kurt.

and X3 Kurt!
I was hoping we would have a clear pic of the un-painted pad by now.

69Z28

Mar 13th, 13, 05:52 PM

I'm going to assume your talking to me...

No...not what I'm saying, but from where I sit, it is hard to figure out what it is you people want 'NOT' to be advertised about these details and things so the bad guys don't fake them. It's always a guessing game even for the people that have the real stuff to figure out if it is real or not if all that is said is "I can't tell you where the bad guys can see it posted". Kind of like, I can tell you, but I'll have to kill you after. Not everybody is a crook you know.

So what you want for the hobby is the mind set that "anything could have happened at the factory?" You will just cheerfully ignore over 20 years of CRG data gathering and analysis that clearly shows that not to be true, paving the way for the re-stampers and re-bodiers to do what they do using that logic. All those COPO clones can now be sold as "possibly real."

The problem with putting detailed information out there be it in books or web sites is that it becomes an instruction manual for building fakes. For that reason the CRG has chosen not to reveal some of what has been learned over the years. When statements are made they may be based in part on information that is not public knowledge.

No one said this DZ block wasn't real-just the VIN stamp. How do you plan to prove otherwise?

63VetteConv

Mar 13th, 13, 06:19 PM

Gentlemen, thanks for the suggestions and assistance.

I will not have access to the block again until March 23. I'll clean the pad (as described above) and post pictures of it and the casting date then. As I wrote before, the pistons are still in the block with the exception of one that is out and on hand. Anything on it worth posting? Anything else you would like to see?

frankk

Mar 13th, 13, 07:40 PM

So what you want for the hobby is the mind set that "anything could have happened at the factory?" You will just cheerfully ignore over 20 years of CRG data gathering and analysis that clearly shows that not to be true, paving the way for the re-stampers and re-bodiers to do what they do using that logic. All those COPO clones can now be sold as "possibly real."

The problem with putting detailed information out there be it in books or web sites is that it becomes an instruction manual for building fakes. For that reason the CRG has chosen not to reveal some of what has been learned over the years. When statements are made they may be based in part on information that is not public knowledge.

No one said this DZ block wasn't real-just the VIN stamp. How do you plan to prove otherwise?

I must say once again I agree with what William is saying. I have often thought about the information Jerry M. puts out in his books. True it helps the person learning about his car,but it equally helps the person that has every intention of using that information to build a car that is deceitfull, and it seems these days there are hoards of those type of people out there. I believe some of the info on these cars should be guarded.

rszmjt

Mar 13th, 13, 07:41 PM

Gentlemen, thanks for the suggestions and assistance.

I will not have access to the block again until March 23. I'll clean the pad (as described above) and post pictures of it and the casting date then. As I wrote before, the pistons are still in the block with the exception of one that is out and on hand. Anything on it worth posting? Anything else you would like to see?

Tom - A straight on shot above the pad with no angle will help, also Please post the casting number of the block and check to see if the rods are full floating with clips in the piston, and a shot of the rod cap and piston top, bottom, and side would help to determine originality.

Thanks. Mike.

rszmjt

Mar 13th, 13, 07:46 PM

I must say once again I agree with what William is saying. I have often thought about the information Jerry M. puts out in his books. True it helps the person learning about his car,but it equally helps the person that has every intention of using that information to build a car that is deceitfull, and it seems these days there are hoards of those type of people out there. I believe some of the info on these cars should be guarded.

Frank, I Agree with what your saying, but lets face it the block stampers who have been doing it for years probably know the information anyway, it would only Help the rookies. Again any one investing in a so called " Original Block or Car" would be well advised to do their Due Diligence and Have a "Expert" authenticate such! JMO.

69Z28

Mar 13th, 13, 09:51 PM

I don't know...people have a thirst for knowledge, the good guys and the bad guys. I'm a curious person by nature and I am always searching for the right answer, whatever that may be. I get the impression that it's a privledge and not a right to find out what's right or wrong about our cars. How can anyone tell someone like Jerry M that he can't write a book about something he's passionate about. Just doesn't seem right to hide the truth.

RPOZ11

Mar 13th, 13, 10:34 PM

William...
I understand and frankly, I don't wish to educate the bad people who mislead others with bad intentions.
I expected the response that you provided.
I' be been around these cars for over 33 years.
I've seen things that were not consistent.
Yet, back 33 years ago, none of the Camaro guys I knew stopped to consider
Documenting in such a thorough manner.
Thus, alot of those cars are now either gone or since changed over time.
I opened my first Camaro book by Ray Miller.
Wrote to him back then, and I still today have his reply letter.
Then all of us held Incremona's book.
That book changed how we all looked at these.
Prior to that, I can't tell you how many yellow houndstooth interiors I saw spin thru the yards here in SoCal.
So the inconsistencies were there for the viewing, but back then...
We all watched those inconsistencies get crushed for scrap metal.

I appreciate what you folks offer thru this site and CRG.

emccomas

Mar 15th, 13, 08:16 AM

Can't find this thread by navigating through the Team Camaro forum. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

click

Mar 15th, 13, 10:15 AM

You have this thread in TAG TEAM section... at the bottom of the main Tag section is a place to choose how many days back you want to view threads,,, maybe its set for 2, but just use the drop down and change it to 10 or what ever you want. :) and edit your profile and add a first name too please :)

frankk

Mar 15th, 13, 09:01 PM

I don't know...people have a thirst for knowledge, the good guys and the bad guys. I'm a curious person by nature and I am always searching for the right answer, whatever that may be. I get the impression that it's a privledge and not a right to find out what's right or wrong about our cars. How can anyone tell someone like Jerry M that he can't write a book about something he's passionate about. Just doesn't seem right to hide the truth.

Well... nobody;s telling Jerry he cannot write a book. But I can tell you from speaking with Jerry he is very in tune with the prevailing problems.

69Z28

Mar 15th, 13, 09:48 PM

Yeah, he would have to be. If the re-stampers are getting better he has to get even better...er. :D

Well... nobody;s telling Jerry he cannot write a book. But I can tell you from speaking with Jerry he is very in tune with the prevailing problems.

63VetteConv

Mar 15th, 13, 10:20 PM

I'll be in Long Beach, CA, next Saturday.

If an authoritative source would like to be with me when I remove the paint and take pictures of the block, I would be more than welcome to accomodate that person.

Send me a PM and I'd be glad to make arrangements.

I'm not interested in somebody PM'ing me who will not be able to attest to the validity of the engine on this forum.

This motor has been sitting in my dad's garage for at least 25 years and I am confident it is actually longer.

I don't know if counterfeiters were around back then, but I doubt it. And I still don't know why somebody would stamp a non-sensical VIN on an engine block. So I'm willing to go the extra effort to share this anomoly. PM me if you fit the bill. Otherwise, expect pictures next weekend.

Kurt S

Mar 15th, 13, 11:59 PM

Tom,
No worries. Pics and the casting # and date will be great. :)

emccomas

Mar 16th, 13, 09:31 PM

You have this thread in TAG TEAM section... at the bottom of the main Tag section is a place to choose how many days back you want to view threads,,, maybe its set for 2, but just use the drop down and change it to 10 or what ever you want. :) and edit your profile and add a first name too please :)

Thanks for the info. Profile is filled out now. Gracias.

63VetteConv

Mar 16th, 13, 10:04 PM

I'll be in Long Beach, CA, next Saturday.

If an authoritative source would like to be with me when I remove the paint and take pictures of the block, I would be more than welcome to accomodate that person.

Send me a PM and I'd be glad to make arrangements.

I'm not interested in somebody PM'ing me who will not be able to attest to the validity of the engine on this forum.

This motor has been sitting in my dad's garage for at least 25 years and I am confident it is actually longer.

I don't know if counterfeiters were around back then, but I doubt it. And I still don't know why somebody would stamp a non-sensical VIN on an engine block. So I'm willing to go the extra effort to share this anomoly. PM me if you fit the bill. Otherwise, expect pictures next weekend.

RPOZ11 has been given my contact number and I hope will be there when I strip the paint off. More info to follow next weekend...

emccomas

Mar 17th, 13, 01:52 PM

RPOZ11 has been given my contact number and I hope will be there when I strip the paint off. More info to follow next weekend...

Tom,
Not enough solid info to comment on the pad at this point - I have some thoughts but....
I'd like to see a better pad pic.
What's the casting date & casting #?

Thanks!
And welcome!

KURT , I would like to ask...
on the CRG posting of VIN numbers for February 1969,
The VIN posted there : 9L525388
As I read this correctly, it is being stated that this was the last VIN assigned for a Camaro for the month of February, 1969...Correct?

If so, do you have the rest of the info for that VIN'd car?
ie: engine code, etc etc?
Im not asking for it, just wondering; that's all.
If you do, I am curious if his V0207DZ here has a relative timeline comparison for the 9L525388 VIN.

Lastly, does CRG have the VIN 19L524125 in their books?

Kurt S

Mar 17th, 13, 08:30 PM

9L525388 - As I read this correctly, it is being stated that this was the last VIN assigned for a Camaro for the month of February, 1969...Correct?

No, it is not the last assigned VIN - VIN's were assigned when the bodies were transferred from Fisher. That is from GM records - it's supposedly the last car produced that month.
1. It isn't known what day of the month was used for logging the monthly production, or if the same system was used for all years.
2. It isn't certain where in the production process GM recorded this data.
3. Vehicles were NOT assembled in the exact order of VIN. For any given VIN selected as the nominal "last" for that month, it is likely that slightly lower or higher VINs might either still be in process, or might have already been assembled.
4. The build date on the cowl tag is when the body was started. It was attached 3-4 days before final assembly of the car was completed and build week dates did not always align exactly with calendar weeks.

If so, do you have the rest of the info for that VIN'd car?
ie: engine code, etc etc? If you do, I am curious if his V0207DZ here has a relative timeline comparison for the 9L525388 VIN.
Nope, I've never seen any of the month-ending cars, yet.

Lastly, does CRG have the VIN 19L524125 in their books?
No. I would have said something if it was there...

RPOZ11

Mar 17th, 13, 10:52 PM

No, it is not the last assigned VIN - VIN's were assigned when the bodies were transferred from Fisher. That is from GM records - it's supposedly the last car produced that month.

So what CRG has posted is not the exact last VIN assigned.
So you are not sure that 19L525388 is a determined number for February.
Good to know.

RPOZ11

Mar 17th, 13, 10:54 PM

1. It isn't known what day of the month was used for logging the monthly production, or if the same system was used for all years.

For all years???
Arent we specifically talking 1969 here?

RPOZ11

Mar 17th, 13, 10:55 PM

2. It isn't certain where in the production process GM recorded this data.

So I suppose CRG is still attempting to gather this info?

RPOZ11

Mar 17th, 13, 10:57 PM

3. Vehicles were NOT assembled in the exact order of VIN. For any given VIN selected as the nominal "last" for that month, it is likely that slightly lower or higher VINs might either still be in process, or might have already been assembled.

"Vehicles were NOT assembled in the exact order of VIN"

I could not agree more!!!

RPOZ11

Mar 17th, 13, 10:59 PM

4. The build date on the cowl tag is when the body was started. It was attached 3-4 days before final assembly of the car was completed and build week dates did not always align exactly with calendar weeks.

"build week dates did not always align exactly with calendar weeks"

That is correct!

So, we can now assume that variations are present.

His DZ falls into this pattern; so far as I can tell...

RPOZ11

Mar 17th, 13, 11:16 PM

4. The build date on the cowl tag is when the body was started. It was attached 3-4 days before final assembly of the car was completed and build week dates did not always align exactly with calendar weeks.

So, if a car was ordered, or...special ordered, whether as thru the dealer or thru a COPO designation, it is not clear as to when drivetrian, interior, or paint was assigned...based upon the cowl tag being installed 3-4 days before final assembly?

William

Mar 18th, 13, 07:21 AM

Virtually all orders went through a dealer. When Central Office confirmed the dealer order the number seen on the body tag was assigned meaning the car COULD be built based on the master production schedule. WHEN it was built is a product of paint color, shipping destination, dealer rank, material availability. Body tags, particularly in June, could sit unprocessed for several days. That's how our 06E '67 Z/28 managed to get a V0706MO engine. I'll bet the current owner is tired of explaining it.

VIN assignment was done, in order, as the bodies came out of the bank. There were several final-assembly lines based on build configuration. Yes #11 could be final-assembled somewhat before #10 but not by much.

Jonesy

Mar 18th, 13, 08:59 AM

:popcorn:

Kurt S

Mar 18th, 13, 11:17 AM

So what CRG has posted is not the exact last VIN assigned.
So you are not sure that 19L525388 is a determined number for February.
Good to know.
You keep using the word 'assigned'. That was done almost 2 days earlier in the process and isn't relevant here.

Per GM records, this is what *GM* reported as the last VIN completed on that date. There's lots of caveats to that data. Some data is obviously off - why is unknown.
http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany

VIN assignment was done, in order, as the bodies came out of the bank.
Actually, VIN assignment was done, in order, as the bodies came *into* the body bank.
http://www.camaros.org/assemblyprocess.shtml#chev

William

Mar 18th, 13, 11:57 AM

You keep using the word 'assigned'. That was done almost 2 days earlier in the process and isn't relevant here.

Per GM records, this is what *GM* reported as the last VIN completed on that date. There's lots of caveats to that data. Some data is obviously off - why is unknown.
http://www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#HowMany

The 'last VIN' was not and did not have to be the latest VIN in process. It was probably just a snapshot in time for accounting, not production records. It is off sequence because the record was taken after roll test I believe. There could easily be later VINs remaining in assembly simply because they took longer to build. A loaded SS-RS convert with VIN #10 will take longer to final-assemble than #11, a low-option standard coupe. So #11 hits the last station first and gets recorded.

I have reverse-engineered the '69 production schedules for both plants and the last VIN is not off by much.

Ric67

Mar 18th, 13, 12:55 PM

Just a little input from a non expert. In high school in the early 70's my Auto mechanics class toured the Oshawa Ontario plant. Scattered throghout the plant were bodies, chassis,components etc taken off the line for various flaws,damage mistakes etc. If I remember what we were told correctly they would be off line for up to a few hours so workers could see, then were repaired,corrected etc and placed back on the line. Now that was 40 years ago so I may be mistaken, But it could explain how on occassion #11 would finish before #10 ???

William

Mar 18th, 13, 01:21 PM

Yes, and the opposite is also true-if #11 were the unit delayed but the one recorded #12-#16 may have been completed prior.

It was just a snapshot in time-nothing more.

Kurt S

Mar 18th, 13, 06:21 PM

I should have said:
This is what GM reported as the VIN of the last car completed on that date.

At NOR and LOS, there was no way to remove a body from the line on the Chevrolet side.
I've been in lots of plants - cars get built and then sent to repair bays to address what couldn't be fixed on the line. And most get fixed on the line. There's no room in the plant to put in-process cars and parts - if you pulled a car, then what do you do with the engine and doors that were going to meet it soon.....

Ric67

Mar 18th, 13, 06:45 PM

I should have said:
This is what GM reported as the VIN of the last car completed on that date.

At NOR and LOS, there was no way to remove a body from the line on the Chevrolet side.
I've been in lots of plants - cars get built and then sent to repair bays to address what couldn't be fixed on the line. And most get fixed on the line. There's no room in the plant to put in-process cars and parts - if you pulled a car, then what do you do with the engine and doors that were going to meet it soon.....
As I said just a memory from the Oshawa plant from 40 years ago. One of these days I may write something useful ! But then no has yet asked me glass question How did that astro ventilation rear quarter get in that car ?

RPOZ11

Mar 18th, 13, 10:18 PM

Virtually all orders went through a dealer. When Central Office confirmed the dealer order the number seen on the body tag was assigned meaning the car COULD be built based on the master production schedule. WHEN it was built is a product of paint color, shipping destination, dealer rank, material availability. Body tags, particularly in June, could sit unprocessed for several days. That's how our 06E '67 Z/28 managed to get a V0706MO engine. I'll bet the current owner is tired of explaining it.

VIN assignment was done, in order, as the bodies came out of the bank. There were several final-assembly lines based on build configuration. Yes #11 could be final-assembled somewhat before #10 but not by much.

I like the way you explained that.
Most of this is based upon typical orders, where the option sheet and dealer invoice submission, are sent forward to GM?
I will assume that VN & Norwood were given the authority to make VIN tags and assign VIN numbers at the plant of assembly?

I am trying to produce a theoretical answer for why this DZ 302 block has what it has.

Got to thinking that most should know that variations, etc occurred but are NOT to be viewed as a standard when they exist.

RPOZ11

Mar 18th, 13, 10:42 PM

I should have said:
This is what GM reported as the VIN of the last car completed on that date.

Their report of this is where ?
Is GM receiving the info from the Van Nuys plant that they have accepted, sent forward the OK to assemble 19L525388 or that the order was completed on that day?
I keep thinking : when is the VIN stamped onto the body?
Once receiving the body ID tag, when is the VIN plate stamped then installed onto the dash panel?
Then, within this process, when is the block/engine selected then stamped with the VIN info?

To me, when all of this is happening, along with William's submission above, that this is when the variations begin.

If a car was holding up a said assemble, assembly line, then what is the plant doing to keep the line going?

When I have disassembled 1969 Camaros over the years, bolts of certain placement were not as expected.
This is just one example.

So, back to this DZ block, I need to consider WHY this VIN is as it is on his block.
Again I will know better Saturday

You know, that's cool what you have presented there.
However, that's alot of information.

With a SEA of engines and transmissions ready for the assembly line, by being hand stamped in a tool with a hammer, a VIN stamp was a high volume thing.

With that, possibilities could exist where tools, tooling, and available items could see wear or failure.
Again trying to paint the picture for his DZ block here....

jannes_z-28

Mar 18th, 13, 11:53 PM

Found this image of the stamping tool, this is from Chevelles.com

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x274/396guy/Misc/engstamper.jpg

Thread is: http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327385

It must have been easy to place the wrong number in this holder.

Jan

Kurt S

Mar 19th, 13, 09:47 AM

It will be easier to deal with facts.
Let's see a good pic of the pad and the casting # and date and *then* go from there.

RPOZ11

Mar 20th, 13, 09:23 AM

Just a different take to this.
While pondering the possibilities ...

What if the guy loaded the gang stamp backwards?
Does 19L521455 instead of 19L554125 fit the date and casting?
Does anyone have this number on file?

rszmjt

Mar 20th, 13, 02:26 PM

Found this image of the stamping tool, this is from Chevelles.com

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x274/396guy/Misc/engstamper.jpg

Thread is: http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327385

It must have been easy to place the wrong number in this holder.

Jan

Just a different take to this.
While pondering the possibilities ...

What if the guy loaded the gang stamp backwards?
Does 19L521455 instead of 19L554125 fit the date and casting?
Does anyone have this number on file?

Or mixed up the 2 and the 5, - eg, 19L524155, that would put it within 568 cars of the 19L524723/VO210DZ I posted before.

frankk

Mar 20th, 13, 11:04 PM

You know, that's cool what you have presented there.
However, that's alot of information.

With a SEA of engines and transmissions ready for the assembly line, by being hand stamped in a tool with a hammer, a VIN stamp was a high volume thing.

With that, possibilities could exist where tools, tooling, and available items could see wear or failure.
Again trying to paint the picture for his DZ block here....

Your rational is not based on fact anymore. Just supposition and imagination and wishfull thinking.

RPOZ11

Mar 21st, 13, 12:25 AM

Your rational is not based on fact anymore. Just supposition and imagination and wishfull thinking.

You are entitled to your own opinion.
Since no one here seems to know about this block, then all of us will be guessing until any VIN match appears.

Unless this VIN comes up differently,
I am going to stay with the possibility that the #'s were reversed in the gang stamp.

19L521455 instead of 19L554125, that's how I see it.

I'll just use your #'s in the posting on CRG :
Jan-69 9L520247

Feb-69 9L521455

Feb-69 9L525388

The owner will post the findings after we meet.

kinsmd69

Mar 22nd, 13, 12:59 AM

Cant wait for march 23rd!!! pics.!!

Gary, on your block, 512, its hard to tell from the pics, but is your cast date of I 20 8
impressed into the block?? This is the second block that I have seen this way. Does anyone know why a cast date would be impressed, when the blocks are casted and should have the date coming out of the block??

69Z28

Mar 22nd, 13, 03:22 AM

Yeah, it is I 20 8. Ya know I haven't even given that a thought about being impressed instead of raised. It's tightly bagged and put away for safe keeping right now or I would go take a look to verify.

Cant wait for march 23rd!!! pics.!!

Gary, on your block, 512, its hard to tell from the pics, but is your cast date of I 20 8
impressed into the block?? This is the second block that I have seen this way. Does anyone know why a cast date would be impressed, when the blocks are casted and should have the date coming out of the block??

emccomas

Mar 22nd, 13, 07:17 AM

Cant wait for march 23rd!!! pics.!!

Gary, on your block, 512, its hard to tell from the pics, but is your cast date of I 20 8
impressed into the block?? This is the second block that I have seen this way. Does anyone know why a cast date would be impressed, when the blocks are casted and should have the date coming out of the block??

There were some (a small number) of documented correct 1969 Corvette 350 engines with the date code "stamped" instead of cast into the block. I seem to recall that they were mostly around the Dec, 1969 time frame.

Quite a bit of research was done on these blocks and this date code anomaly, and an article was published in "The Corvette Restorer", the quarterly magazine for the National Corvette Restorers Society.

I don't recall right now what the conclusion was, other than it was an "engineering / quality control" process situation. I'll dig up the article and refresh my feeble memory on this.

Would not surprise me a bit that Camaro engines got a similar treatment. They were both coming out of the Flint plant.

Stay tuned....

Kurt S

Mar 22nd, 13, 08:35 PM

It's not impressed - it's just an optical illusion. I've seen it in other pics too.

1968RallySport

Mar 23rd, 13, 05:03 PM

:popcorn:

ZLP955

Mar 23rd, 13, 06:29 PM

Quite a bit of research was done on these blocks and this date code anomaly, and an article was published in "The Corvette Restorer", the quarterly magazine for the National Corvette Restorers Society.
I don't recall right now what the conclusion was, other than it was an "engineering / quality control" process situation. I'll dig up the article and refresh my feeble memory.
Wouldn't relate to this, would it?
http://corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/c3/1969/1969_Corvette_M_Code_Documentation.pdf

On the deck, the pad area where the VIN is stamped...
Any incorrect appearing lines on this area can come from the cleaning process that we performed in order to expose the FACTORY broach finish; or from currently moving the block around over the years.
The broach machine work is consistent all the way from front to back on the surface of this block.

It would be good to post a pic of the rod bearing info from the back side of the bearing.
The bearing is standard journal size.

The only thing left to do is to right down the part # and date code off of the 302 crankshaft.

emccomas

Mar 24th, 13, 08:35 AM

OK, my 2 cents on this engine pad and VIN anomaly...

Note the second "5" digit in the Vin derivative, the specific digit in question.

This "5" digit appears to be more pronounced that the "5" digit immediately to the left of it. That would lead me to believe that the stamp for the right position "5" was fresher / newer than the stamp for the left position "5".

When stamp characters wore out / broke / became faint in the stamping, they were replaced. The characters were not all repaced at the same time. Of course, the last few VIN digits were replaced as subsequent engines were struck.

Remember that the guy replacing the stamp characters was looking at the stamps backwards. He was seeing the head of the stamp in a mirror image of the character.

Perhaps the existing "2" digit" in this place wore out / broke, and the guy replaced in with a "5" character. He looked at the reversed image of the digit, and mistook the backwards "5" for a backwards "2".

It is only a theory, but one that fits the circumstances.

Also note that the transmission wiould have been stamped at the same time the engine was stamped. If the transmission was also stamped with this VIN anomaly, I would consider it a factory anomaly.

RPOZ11

Mar 24th, 13, 08:46 AM

the second "5" digit in the Vin.

This "5" digit appears to be more pronounced that the "5" digit immediately to the left of it. That would lead me to believe that the stamp for the right position "5" was fresher / newer than the stamp for the left position "5".

When stamp characters wore out / broke / became faint in the stamping, they were replaced. The characters were not all repaced at the same time.

And, if a VIN order arrives at the time of being stamped, for example : 19L525555, the employee has only enough numerical font # 5's to select from from his tool supply.
He has to take another set of 5's from another machined set to fill the VIN stamp request.

Some sets were used more than others, where the wear of the numerical 5 here you are selecting has not been worn as much as the other 5's shown in this particular VIN seen here.

emccomas

Mar 24th, 13, 09:28 AM

It would be interesting to see if the 4 speed transmission that matched this 302 was in the Vette. I wonder if the owner can check that out when time permits.

Yet another interesting discussion about "the numbers". :)

rszmjt

Mar 24th, 13, 09:31 AM

OK, my 2 cents on this engine pad and VIN anomaly...

Note the second "5" digit in the Vin derivative, the specific digit in question.

This "5" digit appears to be more pronounced that the "5" digit immediately to the left of it. That would lead me to believe that the stamp for the right position "5" was fresher / newer than the stamp for the left position "5".

When stamp characters wore out / broke / became faint in the stamping, they were replaced. The characters were not all repaced at the same time. Of course, the last few VIN digits were replaced as subsequent engines were struck.

Remember that the guy replacing the stamp characters was looking at the stamps backwards. He was seeing the head of the stamp in a mirror image of the character.

Perhaps the existing "2" digit" in this place wore out / broke, and the guy replaced in with a "5" character. He looked at the reversed image of the digit, and mistook the backwards "5" for a backwards "2".

It is only a theory, but one that fits the circumstances.

Also note that the transmission wiould have been stamped at the same time the engine was stamped. If the transmission was also stamped with this VIN anomaly, I would consider it a factory anomaly.

And, if a VIN order arrives at the time of being stamped, for example : 19L525555, the employee has only enough numerical font # 5's to select from from his tool supply.
He has to take another set of 5's from another machined set to fill the VIN stamp request.

Some sets were used more than others, where the wear of the numerical 5 here you are selecting has not been worn as much as the other 5's shown in this particular VIN seen here.

FWIW, There were numerous quantitys of the same characters in the Gang stamp master sets, the only way this vin stamp could have happened IMO, is if the person who loaded the gang stamp mistakenly placed the 5 in the holder or mixed up the character order as I said before - mixed up the 2 and the 5, - eg, 19L524155, that would put it within 568 cars of the 19L524723/VO210DZ I posted before.

IMO it is a Real Pad, the VO207DZ has the "EXACT" same peculularites as others I have, and the deck grain or Broach marks are unmessed with. Casting "618" is correct for the B-4-9 casting date which also agrees with cast stamp dates of known originals.
The fact that this block has been owned by the same person for so long pretty much rules out any false forgery of the vin. Its too bad the trans was not around to compare the vin stamp. Some LA vins have known differences in characters, but some do not.

Does anyone else see what appears to be a small shape just before the V?

rszmjt

Mar 24th, 13, 09:34 AM

Does any one else see what appears to be a small impression just before the V?

RPOZ11

Mar 24th, 13, 10:32 AM

Does anyone else see what appears to be a small shape just before the V?

Remember, the Flint plant is assembling these.
The VO207DZ was stamped in Flint.
Anything could happen to the deck before, during, & after the machining then assembly.

The stamp seen, the DZ stamped at Flint, and the VIN stamped in VN are authentic.

clill

Mar 24th, 13, 10:54 AM

If any of that is a restamp I'll eat a bug.

RPOZ11

Mar 24th, 13, 11:00 AM

If any of that is a restamp I'll eat a bug.

Know that your diet is bug free

This 302 having it's rotating assembly still present more than confirms what it is.

I particularly enjoyed the fact of seeing just how FAST it became a 302;
from a B-4-9 casting timeline to the 2-07-1969 deck stamp.
GM was really moving along that week.

The only thing left to determine is what the VIN is supposed to be.

If the corresponding VIN possibilities exist, then the person who has this knowledge should share.

If not, it's possible that this DZ shortblock's car is long gone.

rszmjt

Mar 24th, 13, 11:26 AM

Remember, the Flint plant is assembling these.
The VO207DZ was stamped in Flint.
Anything could happen to the deck before, during, & after the machining then assembly.

The stamp seen, the DZ stamped at Flint, and the VIN stamped in VN are authentic.

Know that your diet is bug free

This 302 having it's rotating assembly still present more than confirms what it is.

I particularly enjoyed the fact of seeing just how FAST it became a 302;
from a B-4-9 casting timeline to the 2-07-1969 deck stamp.
GM was really moving along that week.

The only thing left to determine is what the VIN is supposed to be.

If the corresponding VIN possibilities exist, then the person who has this knowledge should share.

If not, it's possible that this DZ shortblock's car is long gone.

Thanks, It is common knowledge Flint assembled these. What I was talking about is a ghost just slightly left of the V, maybe its nothing, just wondering if any one else sees it?

FWIW , I have seen a Corvette engine cast and stamped 2 days apart, in Nolan Adams Book he explains that it is very possible as the foundry ran 24 hrs., and even shows a documented example 1 day apart.

Jonesy

Mar 24th, 13, 02:29 PM

That stamping is good. I suspect the VIN should be 19L524723. The casting date and the build date 3 days later is pretty normal. CASE CLOSED!

rszmjt

Mar 24th, 13, 02:38 PM

That stamping is good. I suspect the VIN should be 19L524723. The casting date and the build date 3 days later is pretty normal. CASE CLOSED!

???? Mike it cant be that vin, I have 19L524723 in my data base, that assembly stamp is VO210DZ as I posted before. Was that a typo? did you mean to type 19L524155?

Theres no Doubt that the stamp is Original.

myty

Mar 24th, 13, 04:02 PM

Happy for you Tom! Way to hang in there.

z28doug

Mar 24th, 13, 04:10 PM

???? I have 19L524723 in my data base, that assembly stamp is VO210DZ as I posted before.

That stamping is good. I suspect the VIN should be 19L524723. The casting date and the build date 3 days later is pretty normal. CASE CLOSED!

Case Closed?

Hhmmmmmmm.........................

Jonesy

Mar 24th, 13, 07:27 PM

whoops, my bad I was looking at that particular block when typing.
The VIN most likely was supposed to be 19L524155. A 5 was accidentally put in the place of the 2.
It fits that time frame for sure.

frankk

Mar 24th, 13, 09:29 PM

Does any one else see what appears to be a small impression just before the V?

I see what you are talking about Mike. Almost like an extra V in one of the pics making the combination look like a W

rszmjt

Mar 24th, 13, 09:44 PM

I see what you are talking about Mike. Almost like an extra V in one of the pics making the combination look like a W

Frank, Thats not what I see, but I just looked again and think it might be a small swirl from getting dragged around or cleaning?

Hoping Kurt and William will post on the Results of the Clean pad, and voice their opinions.

Kurt S

Mar 24th, 13, 10:20 PM

It's what I expected to see - an original stamp.
Original VIN would have been 9L524125.

And I apologize. This rang a bell, but I missed it. There's a block that's 150 before this one with the same stamping error, still in the original car.

69Z28

Mar 24th, 13, 11:02 PM

Good to see that this block/stamping got accepted. It sure seems to confirm that errors did occur anyway. Now the question is does/will this help the counterfeiters? Let's hope not.

RPOZ11

Mar 25th, 13, 12:07 AM

It's what I expected to see - an original stamp.
Original VIN would have been 9L524125.

And I apologize. This rang a bell, but I missed it. There's a block that's 150 before this one with the same stamping error, still in the original car.

Per my suggestion earlier here in post #44 :

"Lastly, does CRG have the VIN 19L524125 in their books?"

As I suspected.

My Pace Car follows even larger discrepancies than this one.

Just good to see that Tom was fortunate enough to supply our Camaro hobby with historical proof of what did happen : Happened!

Kudos to TOM!

emccomas

Mar 25th, 13, 02:51 AM

It's what I expected to see - an original stamp.
Original VIN would have been 9L524125.

And I apologize. This rang a bell, but I missed it. There's a block that's 150 before this one with the same stamping error, still in the original car.

Kurt;

Do I understand from your post that 19L523975 (150 before 19L524125) also has this same anomaly (i.e. the VIN derivative on the engine pad is 19L553975)?

That is an interesting situation, and perhaps something worthy of additional research. Would it be safe to assume that all of the engine pads between 3975 and 4125 have the same anomaly?

If so, then theoretically, this VIN derivative anomaly could appear of any Camaro in that VIN range that was built in Los Angeles. Z/28s, big block cars, 6 cylinder cars.

Yet another one of those mysteries that make this historical research so challenging.

William

Mar 25th, 13, 06:56 AM

Frank, Thats not what I see, but I just looked again and think it might be a small swirl from getting dragged around or cleaning?

Hoping Kurt and William will post on the Results of the Clean pad, and voice their opinions.

It's a real DZ engine. As for the VIN stamp, no idea. A friend has a '67 Corvette with a 'grind-out' VIN correction on his engine. Maybe this one escaped the QA people.

emccomas

Mar 25th, 13, 08:21 AM

It's a real DZ engine. As for the VIN stamp, no idea. A friend has a '67 Corvette with a 'grind-out' VIN correction on his engine. Maybe this one escaped the QA people.

It would appear that this anomaly ran for as long as 150 units, and perhaps more. How many units would be handled in a shift? Maybe this anomaly was restricted to a single shift, or a single day. It really does sound like an fascinating research project.

The Corvette community (that is the area that I play in most of the time) has documented a number of grind out engine pad situations as original.

A single character really sounds like a good candidate for an overstamp. We have seen that many times on Corvette VIN derivatives, but they are almost always the last digit in the VIN derivative. I used to own a 73 base motor Corvette convertible with the last digit of the VIN overstamped on both engine and transmission.

I recently re-read three separate articles in the NCRS publications dealing with these sort of anomalies. Lots of strange things have happened over the years.

foreverlookin

Mar 25th, 13, 10:50 AM

You think the guy/girl doing the stamping was smoking some fat ones on their breaks?

I had a friend that got hired at the GM scaborough van plant and one of his first assignments was to figure out why after each shift there were 3 vans coming off the line with caved in roofs.

He walked the line beginning to end, studied every part of the assembly process and found no viable reason for what was going on.

He was a smoker so he was sitting by the exit door just as the completely finished vehicles come off the end of the line on a chair having a smoke baffled.

All of a sudden the cafeteria door opens, which is one story above the finished floor and out comes the first guy takes a few steps grabs the railing jumps over bounces off the van's roof and onto the ground walks away, second guy same thing third guy ditto. They got repremanded and thats it.

So we know at this point that unit 4125 has this VIN anomaly. We also understand that the unit 150 prior to 4125 (somewhere around 3975) also has this anomaly.

And from this post we know that unit 4717 (592 units after 4125) does NOT have this anomaly.

So, we can deduce that this anomaly spanned at least 150 units, and was resolved by 592 units after 4125.

Does anyone have a Los Angeles built camaro with a VIN between 3800 (as a guesstimate starting point) and 4717? If so, does you engine VIN derivative have this anomaly? I would expect to see this anomaly on ANY Camaro in that time frame, regardless of engine type.

Inquiring minds...

shaugs

Mar 25th, 13, 02:19 PM

It's a real DZ engine. As for the VIN stamp, no idea. A friend has a '67 Corvette with a 'grind-out' VIN correction on his engine. Maybe this one escaped the QA people.

This is an example of why we shouldn't rush to judgement. When this thread was initiated you stated:
"Mar 11th, 13, 11:14 PM
William
Senior Tech

Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,041

Re: 69 DZ engine on Corvette Forum

The VIN is a restamp."

Now we know this VIN is factory original , although the second digit was incorrectly stamped with a 5 instead of a 2.

William

Mar 25th, 13, 03:14 PM

Is that because you say so Steve? Who elected you Judge of the Camaro World?

It is believed to be a factory mis-stamp. And I agree.

Shall I start a discussion of a certain car you sold? Nobody is perfect Steve-not even you.

rszmjt

Mar 25th, 13, 03:39 PM

Cant we all just get along?

William

Mar 25th, 13, 04:12 PM

It's behind the scenes BS. Stevie doesn't like some of my friends so he has to make an example of me. Whatever.

It's a hobby folks, supposed to be enjoyable. Don't take it so seriously.

restore-z28

Mar 25th, 13, 04:29 PM

This is an example of why we shouldn't rush to judgement. When this thread was initiated you stated:
"Mar 11th, 13, 11:14 PM
William
Senior Tech

Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,041

Re: 69 DZ engine on Corvette Forum

The VIN is a restamp."

Now we know this VIN is factory original , although the second digit was incorrectly stamped with a 5 instead of a 2.

Any person can make a mistake, not sure trying to embarrass someone is the right approach either. Steve, generally your posts are not of a personal nature but if there is something going on with you and William maybe taking it offline would be the best approach. Not trying to step into anything here, but lets keep the thread productive and avoid the personal attacks on each other as that will accomplish nothing. This will not be the last time there is a debate and person(s) will be questioned.

shaugs

Mar 25th, 13, 04:38 PM

It's behind the scenes BS. Stevie doesn't like some of my friends so he has to make an example of me. Whatever.

It's a hobby folks, supposed to be enjoyable. Don't take it so seriously.

Willie (only teasing), my only point was that making absolute statements without all the information such as casting date, cleaning the pad, and clear pictures of the stampings of broach marks it was only a guess and made no sense.

I enjoy this hobby very much and am involved in just about every facet for over 35 years, from collecting, judging, fund raising, moderating, restoring, clubs, research and helping fellow hobbyists

I believe you took my post way wrong, and I certainly don't have an issue with you and never have. Take some of your own advice and relax, don't take it so serious and enjoy the hobby.

Gary L

Mar 25th, 13, 10:37 PM

Does any one else see what appears to be a small impression just before the V?

Yes. A "C".

HOT3O2

Mar 26th, 13, 03:47 PM

yes. A "c".

x2

63VetteConv

Mar 29th, 13, 04:23 PM

It would be interesting to see if the 4 speed transmission that matched this 302 was in the Vette. I wonder if the owner can check that out when time permits.

Yet another interesting discussion about "the numbers". :)

Alas, it is not the Z28 transmission. :sad:

3851325 is the main case casting number. But it might be the OEM transmission from my Aug '63 Vette?!?! :beers:

Research suggests that it's a '64-5 Muncie, but I've got other parts in the car that are '64 specific because it was built the last week of '63s (i.e., the seat belts are '64s). Probably a better conversation for the Corvette forum, but I have found that there are many "cross-over" enthusiasts on both forums so I thought I'd answer emccomas' question.

ZLP955

Mar 29th, 13, 05:01 PM

3851325 is the main case casting number. But it might be the OEM transmission from my Aug '63 Vette?!?!
Tom, what's the assembly stamp on the transmission? Pretty sure before 1967, the stamp only used "Pmmdd" format to denote the month and day of assembly.....

rszmjt

Mar 29th, 13, 05:25 PM

Tom, what's the assembly stamp on the transmission? Pretty sure before 1967, the stamp only used "Pmmdd" format to denote the month and day of assembly.....

Corvette also had the vin stamped rite behind the side cover just before the midplate and extension hsg, and Tim is correct that "325" cases were stamped on the passenger side and the format he posted is correct.

63VetteConv

Mar 29th, 13, 07:16 PM

The stance of the car precludes me going underneath it without a lift. I'll post the VIN as soon as I can get underneath the car that far.

In the meantime, I've decided I'm not going to put the 302 back in to the Corvette. I need to repair the block and will separate the crank and pistons to allow them to return back to their original purpose. I'm going to use the proceeds to replace my CE 350 with a period-correct 327. I'll keep the forum updated with the progress and THANKS SO MUCH for all of your expertise!!!

63VetteConv

Mar 29th, 13, 09:50 PM

Here are pics of the heads. Pure artistry if you ask me...
http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/williamstap/IMG_3989-1_zps6571d591.jpg
http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/williamstap/IMG_3990-1_zpsefb870de.jpg